It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wikileaks nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

page: 6
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


You're waking up people and encouraging them to research for themselves, a noble quest you've embarked upon. I'm just responding because you seem to disregard Wikileaks as a valuable source of information, and that is more than premature, but in fact childish in light of the fuss you're making.

If I were to wager the value of my response to you, I'd say it's worth bringing this bit of development to the top of the recent posts to wake the people up to this development.

Surely without you, this would not have received the attention it is now receiving, 5 pages later.

Edit to add: 6 pages later.
edit on 2-2-2011 by smthngmssnghr because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by smthngmssnghr
 


Watch the videos I just posted. They show how biased wikileaks is to the Israeli agenda. THAT is my basis for discrediting wikileaks. Also the fact that he has ties to the big daddy business men of the country who happen to be zionist neo-cons. The same people who orchestrated 9/11. It all ties together you just have to look at it.

But I'm sick of saying the same crap over and over. It's getting really old already. I've said peace like 5 times so far in this thread but I keep getting tempted to come back. But I'm gone for real this time lol. Just do your own research. Really.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Is wikileaks really promoting peace if enemies decide to commit atrocities based on the info that Assange decided to disclose?
Don't be so quick with the high fives because you should expect to accept the good and the bad.
Besides, the Nobel prize ain't what is was once upon a time.




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


I don't doubt there are Israelis in support of Wikileaks. People all over the world support them, but to say one group of crazy nationalists support them from the foundation is ludicrous, I think.

Having even the semblance of a conscience in public affairs is dangerous these days. We're still widely a species with no time or thought to give to our moral dilemmas.

It's easier and more efficient to function on instinct. Politicians know this.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Is wikileaks really promoting peace if enemies decide to commit atrocities based on the info that Assange decided to disclose?
Don't be so quick with the high fives because you should expect to accept the good and the bad.
Besides, the Nobel prize ain't what is was once upon a time.



It's better than Time's person of the year.

Just as a soldier sacrifices himself for the greater good of peace, so must we all enter dangerous scenarios to further the greater good of ourselves and society at large. Peace is an ideal of society in the same way happiness is the ideal of individuals. How do we arrive at either peace or happiness? We go through hell.
edit on 2-2-2011 by smthngmssnghr because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Would be well deserved


Free press ftw!!



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FalselyFlagged
 


I think the NOBEL PRIZE has cheapened itself a long time ago and isn't as coveted and as hard as it should be tanymore. They'll give it to anybody just ask Obama



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


So I am on the fence with wiki leaks. I have heard theories from many people with ideas similar to yours and the opposite of course. I think it could easily be a disinformation operation, while it could easily be what it claims to be. Neither side seems to have conclusive evidence, at least that they can provide.

You seem to be aware of connections between Assange and the Rothschild family. Can you provide a source for this claim in this thread in order to help me understand?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Well, that cements it. Could anything scream more loudly that wikileaks is a zionist tool?
The kiss of death, at last, for the obvious control institution of wikileaks.

Enjoy your official conspiracy theory, dupes.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Well, if Wikileaks was to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, at least we know who they're working for...



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Marulo
 


Well there's not really a specific link I can refer you to, but you're welcome to do a couple of google searches to validate what I'm saying. Basically the law firm that represents Assange (Finers Stephens Innocent) also represents the Rothschild Waddesdon Trust (www.charityperformance.com...). *coincidentally* in 2008 The Economist (Rothschild owned) gave Assange the Freedom of Expression award. You can look at my post on the first page of the thread for a list of other "coincidences" linking him to the top of the pyramid so to speak.


Also, in this interview with Assange by The Economist, at 5:29 Assange is asked essentially if he is able to decide the outcome of the documents he releases. Listen carefully to what he says. He "strips the bad" and "leaves the good" (I'd recommend watching the whole thing)

Well that's pretty subjective don't you think? Who's to say that what *he* thinks is good, isn't just something to further his own agenda? So there you go, outright admittance from Assange himself that he keeps selective truths and leaves out other things. "Transparency" my ass. What's so transparent about editing documents and then calling them official leaks?



You might want to also check out this link to read some more on his connection. If I'm not mistaken it's in German but google page translator will fix that for you.

edit on 3-2-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Great news! About time!



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 



Also, in this interview with Assange by The Economist, at 5:29 Assange is asked essentially if he is able to decide the outcome of the documents he releases. Listen carefully to what he says. He "strips the bad" and "leaves the good" (I'd recommend watching the whole thing)

Well that's pretty subjective don't you think? Who's to say that what *he* thinks is good, isn't just something to further his own agenda? So there you go, outright admittance from Assange himself that he keeps selective truths and leaves out other things.


C'mon mate, that's a pretty big assumption..
All editors strip out the bad..
You're just deciding what YOUR opinion of bad is..
ie: An agenda on Julian's part..It may be simply the useless cables with no importance..



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


He runs a leak site. He's not supposed to "edit" anything. What's the point of leaks if you subjectively edit out information?

Edit: well besides maybe names for obvious reasons. I wasn't making any assumption. I'm going by what came right out of Julian's mouth, and if you still don't believe it, then...wow...all I have to say.
edit on 3-2-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by backinblack
 


He runs a leak site. He's not supposed to "edit" anything. What's the point of leaks if you subjectively edit out information?

Edit: well besides maybe names for obvious reasons. I wasn't making any assumption. I'm going by what came right out of Julian's mouth, and if you still don't believe it, then...wow...all I have to say.
edit on 3-2-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)


He had 280000 cables..
Some would be routine BS..Why would he publish them??
That's what I mean.....



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Once again, that's subjective. That "routine BS" may want to be seen by others.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


Lets just agree to disagree..
I see no way to reasonably debate with someone who's mind is so made up..



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlovenlyGhost
I hope they win it,too.


After they gave it to Obama it kinda lost it's worth but they've been making up for it ever since.


That is so true it hurts. The Nobel Peace prize lost all meaning to me when President Obama received his. That action was a cruel joke and a huge insult to all the former Prize recipients.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I was about to say the same.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by LargeFries

Originally posted by SlovenlyGhost
I hope they win it,too.


After they gave it to Obama it kinda lost it's worth but they've been making up for it ever since.


That is so true it hurts. The Nobel Peace prize lost all meaning to me when President Obama received his. That action was a cruel joke and a huge insult to all the former Prize recipients.


C'mon guys, the credibility of the Nobel prize was destroyed with Al Gore...
Obama was just to remind us how worthless it really is..




top topics



 
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join